An Englishmans house is his castle.......
Discussion
robemcdonald said:
It is also extremely unlikely that the house met building regs either (nothing to base this on, but if you don't bother with planning why worry about regs?)
Of the building had been allowed to stay then as others have already said the flood gates would be opened for all sorts of abuse. The planning process is there for a reason and it's a good one. It's quite sad that people that don't get their own way feel the need to suggest that "it's all down to brown envelopes, stuffed with fivers". You can probably use Google to find a couple of example where this is the case, but I bet all those stories are linked to the perpetrator losing their job and or ending up behind bars. The truth is most planners view their jobs as a vocation and are all about making sure things get approved or not for the right reasons.
Many say the planning system should be scrapped. Fair enough, but don't moan when your next door neighbour knocks down his house to build a block of flats.
I worked on an enquiry into a town planning department. I couldn't stay on it as a friend of mine was involved.Of the building had been allowed to stay then as others have already said the flood gates would be opened for all sorts of abuse. The planning process is there for a reason and it's a good one. It's quite sad that people that don't get their own way feel the need to suggest that "it's all down to brown envelopes, stuffed with fivers". You can probably use Google to find a couple of example where this is the case, but I bet all those stories are linked to the perpetrator losing their job and or ending up behind bars. The truth is most planners view their jobs as a vocation and are all about making sure things get approved or not for the right reasons.
Many say the planning system should be scrapped. Fair enough, but don't moan when your next door neighbour knocks down his house to build a block of flats.
Everyone in the department was taking a bung, even a secretary. My friend had his hand in the till but, in order to focus the enquiry, they concentrated on the two at the top, the SIO having to leave the decision to the CPS as one of them excluded was my mate.
So my mate got disciplined, resulting in a sacking with no severance package. Without losing even a week's pay he joined another planning dept some distance away, but the increase in pay more than made up for the cost of fuel.
I'm not suggesting they are all at it. This council had poor - non-existent according to the SIO - supervision and there was no real discipline department.
But I'm all for town planning and I'm all for strong discipline and supervision.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not suggesting they are all at it. This council had poor - non-existent according to the SIO - supervision and there was no real discipline department.
But I'm all for town planning and I'm all for strong discipline and supervision.
One small window I had into a similar situation a while back, showed me that the bungs weren't even the worst bit, the worst bit was the strident almost communist doctrine of some of the members, who thought it was their role to level everyone down. Depressing.But I'm all for town planning and I'm all for strong discipline and supervision.
LeighW said:
stuff
Grey Britain, bringing everyone down, brick by brick and slowing eroding individuality a soupçon at a time. These sort remind me of the auditors of reality.robemcdonald said:
It is also extremely unlikely that the house met building regs either (nothing to base this on, but if you don't bother with planning why worry about regs?)
As mentioned above, it looks well-made (if hideous) but in the photos you can see it has been built using corrugated iron inside.I assume this was so partly so the early construction could be in the open, possibly he reused surplus parts? The photos here show some of the construction:
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-12/farmer-who-buil...
Derek Smith said:
I worked on an enquiry into a town planning department. I couldn't stay on it as a friend of mine was involved.
Everyone in the department was taking a bung, even a secretary. My friend had his hand in the till but, in order to focus the enquiry, they concentrated on the two at the top, the SIO having to leave the decision to the CPS as one of them excluded was my mate.
So my mate got disciplined, resulting in a sacking with no severance package. Without losing even a week's pay he joined another planning dept some distance away, but the increase in pay more than made up for the cost of fuel.
I'm not suggesting they are all at it. This council had poor - non-existent according to the SIO - supervision and there was no real discipline department.
But I'm all for town planning and I'm all for strong discipline and supervision.
So basically like I said the ones on the take get found out, usually pretty quickly. As for your friend picking up, another job straight away. I'm sure he failed to mention his previous impropriety at his interview.Everyone in the department was taking a bung, even a secretary. My friend had his hand in the till but, in order to focus the enquiry, they concentrated on the two at the top, the SIO having to leave the decision to the CPS as one of them excluded was my mate.
So my mate got disciplined, resulting in a sacking with no severance package. Without losing even a week's pay he joined another planning dept some distance away, but the increase in pay more than made up for the cost of fuel.
I'm not suggesting they are all at it. This council had poor - non-existent according to the SIO - supervision and there was no real discipline department.
But I'm all for town planning and I'm all for strong discipline and supervision.
A similar case, albeit on a smaller scale, below.
"Couple who disguised house as a garage told to tear it down "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/couple-...
More photos here..
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/n...
"Couple who disguised house as a garage told to tear it down "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/couple-...
More photos here..
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/n...
The house was in the middle of quite an ugly farm yard by the look of it. I have some sympathy for the bloke. Let's see the council planning permissions for say Chatsworth, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham. I believe there is an argument that a landowner should be able to build whatever the fk he likes on his own land, provided that it does not interfere with anyone else, is a private dwelling, occupies not more than (say) 1% of his property by area, is not going to be sold on for commercial gain, and is invisible from the nearest road.
His mistake was failure to buy his local councillor a slap up meal and a weekend at a spa. Seems to work for most.
My local council wouldn't let my friend build a modest garage in his garden, but were fine with Sainsbury's plonking a 10-acre megastore on the town's playing field. (Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket. The local paper held a vote and the response was a clear 'no', which the council dismissed as not representative and built it anyway. Of course the local traders complained but the council made a supposed concession by building some small units. 10 or so were built, I think after 5 years they have managed to fill 4 with national chains and no local traders because the rates are so high. Rotten to the fking core.
My local council wouldn't let my friend build a modest garage in his garden, but were fine with Sainsbury's plonking a 10-acre megastore on the town's playing field. (Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket. The local paper held a vote and the response was a clear 'no', which the council dismissed as not representative and built it anyway. Of course the local traders complained but the council made a supposed concession by building some small units. 10 or so were built, I think after 5 years they have managed to fill 4 with national chains and no local traders because the rates are so high. Rotten to the fking core.
Edited by foxbody-87 on Tuesday 19th September 21:23
Ayahuasca said:
The house was in the middle of quite an ugly farm yard by the look of it. I have some sympathy for the bloke. Let's see the council planning permissions for say Chatsworth, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham. I believe there is an argument that a landowner should be able to build whatever the fk he likes on his own land, provided that it does not interfere with anyone else, is a private dwelling, occupies not more than (say) 1% of his property by area, is not going to be sold on for commercial gain, and is invisible from the nearest road.
So no need for it to be safe, or connected to services etc. No need to pay for expensive houses when you can just buy cheap farm land and build a McMansion or two in the middle of it?What could possibly go wrong.
98elise said:
Ayahuasca said:
The house was in the middle of quite an ugly farm yard by the look of it. I have some sympathy for the bloke. Let's see the council planning permissions for say Chatsworth, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham. I believe there is an argument that a landowner should be able to build whatever the fk he likes on his own land, provided that it does not interfere with anyone else, is a private dwelling, occupies not more than (say) 1% of his property by area, is not going to be sold on for commercial gain, and is invisible from the nearest road.
So no need for it to be safe, or connected to services etc. No need to pay for expensive houses when you can just buy cheap farm land and build a McMansion or two in the middle of it?What could possibly go wrong.
SpeckledJim said:
98elise said:
Ayahuasca said:
The house was in the middle of quite an ugly farm yard by the look of it. I have some sympathy for the bloke. Let's see the council planning permissions for say Chatsworth, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham. I believe there is an argument that a landowner should be able to build whatever the fk he likes on his own land, provided that it does not interfere with anyone else, is a private dwelling, occupies not more than (say) 1% of his property by area, is not going to be sold on for commercial gain, and is invisible from the nearest road.
So no need for it to be safe, or connected to services etc. No need to pay for expensive houses when you can just buy cheap farm land and build a McMansion or two in the middle of it?What could possibly go wrong.
foxbody-87 said:
His mistake was failure to buy his local councillor a slap up meal and a weekend at a spa. Seems to work for most.
My local council wouldn't let my friend build a modest garage in his garden, but were fine with Sainsbury's plonking a 10-acre megastore on the town's playing field. (Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket. The local paper held a vote and the response was a clear 'no', which the council dismissed as not representative and built it anyway. Of course the local traders complained but the council made a supposed concession by building some small units. 10 or so were built, I think after 5 years they have managed to fill 4 with national chains and no local traders because the rates are so high. Rotten to the fking core.
Somebody was getting a drink.My local council wouldn't let my friend build a modest garage in his garden, but were fine with Sainsbury's plonking a 10-acre megastore on the town's playing field. (Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket. The local paper held a vote and the response was a clear 'no', which the council dismissed as not representative and built it anyway. Of course the local traders complained but the council made a supposed concession by building some small units. 10 or so were built, I think after 5 years they have managed to fill 4 with national chains and no local traders because the rates are so high. Rotten to the fking core.
Edited by foxbody-87 on Tuesday 19th September 21:23
Sounds like my council.
BlackLabel said:
A similar case, albeit on a smaller scale, below.
"Couple who disguised house as a garage told to tear it down "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/couple-...
More photos here..
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/n...
"Couple who disguised house as a garage told to tear it down "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/couple-...
More photos here..
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/n...
dailymail sad face man said:
'I thought I would have got it through planning but they've come up with some cock-and-bull story about concealment.
So sure it would be fine he pretended his house was some cock and bull garagefoxbody-87 said:
(Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket.
That's outrageous.A similar thing has happened near where I live. Dunsfold Aerodrome was originally farmland 'borrowed' during the war and supposedly required to return to farmland. 1,800 homes are due to be built there - 100% local opposition and zero infrastructure for such a hideous new town in the middle of beautiful countryside. No school places locally, tiny village rail stations with no parking after about 9am... narrow country lanes... I could go on.
The developers bank the cash and move on. Leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess.
NDA said:
foxbody-87 said:
(Said field was donated by the landowner to the people of the town for recreational purposes. The council lost the deed with aforementioned stipulation 'in a fire'). The nearby residents previously having a view of the hills, now treated to the HGV loading bays of the supermarket.
That's outrageous.A similar thing has happened near where I live. Dunsfold Aerodrome was originally farmland 'borrowed' during the war and supposedly required to return to farmland. 1,800 homes are due to be built there - 100% local opposition and zero infrastructure for such a hideous new town in the middle of beautiful countryside. No school places locally, tiny village rail stations with no parking after about 9am... narrow country lanes... I could go on.
The developers bank the cash and move on. Leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess.
Ayahuasca said:
I think you would be pushed to find any locals who did not object to new developments in their back yard. The 1,800 families who will live in the new houses have to live somewhere, most people just prefer it was not anywhere near them.
It's the lack of any infrastructure that concerns the locals. No parking available at the rail stations now - how will they cope with maybe 1,000 new commuters? The schools locally are totally full, as are the doctors surgeries. The little lane that would run from this development to the nearest rail station is single track... etc etcThe houses themselves are not a massive issue. But the lack of any infrastructure really is an issue.
Ayahuasca said:
SpeckledJim said:
98elise said:
Ayahuasca said:
The house was in the middle of quite an ugly farm yard by the look of it. I have some sympathy for the bloke. Let's see the council planning permissions for say Chatsworth, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham. I believe there is an argument that a landowner should be able to build whatever the fk he likes on his own land, provided that it does not interfere with anyone else, is a private dwelling, occupies not more than (say) 1% of his property by area, is not going to be sold on for commercial gain, and is invisible from the nearest road.
So no need for it to be safe, or connected to services etc. No need to pay for expensive houses when you can just buy cheap farm land and build a McMansion or two in the middle of it?What could possibly go wrong.
1. Meet certain criteria before you would be allowed to build it.
2. Comply with some sort building standards
Sounds like planning permission and building regs to me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff